Palin v Clinton for 2016

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Because Obama was demonstrably bad at his job, and
2. Because Bush had the country on permanent Orange Alert.

If the Bush coalition is still larger than the Obama coalition, then it's not the coalition that's the problem, it's the leader.

Note: It isn't 2004. For Obama to win despite his weak record, determined congressional gridlock and a bad economy, speaks volumes. Demographic trends are clear, and if the GOP can't build outside its base, it's only going to get worse for them.

I've already proved that the demographic trends do not support your argument.

[giblets]

Then why did Bush Jr. in his second time around command a coalition of sixty-four million Americans, while Obama in his second time around commands a coalition of sixty-one million Americans?

They haven't even finished counting the 2012 votes yet.

[MrFun]

It wouldn't matter. If the economy is doing well and Obama is viewed well, Biden would win.

Sorry, I actually think I agree with HC on this one. I personally like Biden but there are times when his loose-cannon mouth makes me groan in embarrassment. I can't see how someone like Biden could feasibly win a presidential election. I'll be more interested in supporting another Democratic candidate over Biden come 2016.

[giblets]

The ONLY swing state for which Bush's 2004 votes exceed Obama's 2012 votes is Ohio. Even if we accept Ben's premise that bashing gays would offset "let Detroit go bankrupt" in that state Obama still would have won.

[-Jrabbit]

Ben doesn't seem to understand that no matter how large or small the margin, all you get are that state's electoral votes. Romney's "coalition" (i.e., the same base as the last three elections) piled up huge margins in the deep red states, but that didn't get him a single extra electoral vote. He lost by small margins in nearly every purple state, and thus got steamrolled where it counts -- in the electoral college.

[MRT144]

I keep saying this but the overall popular vote and especially the house votes give republicans a false sense of superiority.

[MrFun]

I thought Obama won the majority of the popular vote, along with the electoral vote?

[MRT144]

I thought Obama won the majority of the popular vote, along with the electoral vote?

The closeness of the popular vote gives the impression that Obama wasn't as strong as previously thought.

[giblets]

I keep saying this but the overall popular vote and especially the house votes give republicans a false sense of superiority.

Although it's looking like Democratic congressional candidates got more votes nationwide than Republican candidates did.

[DinoDoc]

The conservative party in Canada succeeded in gaining the immigrant vote. It took a lot of work and discipline. Having random nutjob eruptions within the party would have derailed them. I don't know if the Repubs could manage it.

We'll see.

[-Jrabbit]

The GOP losing Senate races in three red states (Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota), plus traditionally red Virginia, is pretty strong evidence that there's a problem. It seems to put the lie to the contention that the "whiter" states of the Midwest are fertile ground. The urban areas of the Midwest states are diverse and becoming moreso. The rural areas are shrinking in population. Which leaves only the suburbs and smaller cities, many of which are college towns.

Granted, Mourdock and Akin self-destructed, but that would tend to indicate that there's a definite gender problem. Also: Romney had no coattails.

[notyoueither]

We'll see.

Keys here were:

Not being extreme on social issues. Other parties tried to paint them as extreme. They just kept their heads down and kept working on it. The leadership shelved anything to do with abortion or opposition to gay rights. After a time they gained traction with members of the media in the centre and the larger cities. Eventually charges of being extreme whack-jobs slid off them for the most part.

They were and are pro immigration. All major parties in Canada are. They had an asset in the fact that the vast majority of Canadian immigrants and decendants of immigrants came here legally. The only opposition they have to immigration would be clamping down on illegals and que jumping. Most immigrants support them on this as most all of them went through the process themselves, or their parents did.

Some of the best talent in the government spent several years actively courting immigrant communities in person, year-round, coast to coast.

They won after doing these things led to winning seats in the major cities and their suburbs.

That's how I see it.

The third item is easy enough for the Republicans to do, if they want. I have no idea how they will pull off the first and second.

[DinoDoc]

The third item is easy enough for the Republicans to do, if they want. I have no idea how they will pull off the first and second.

Republicans as a party aren't anti- legal immigration. It's the illegal part they as a party have an issue with. Pairing a credible border security package (so this issue doesn't crop up again in 2 decades) along with a broader reform of the immigration system would likely get support.

Re social issues: Romney avoided such discussions like they were the plague. I don't see any electoral problem with the party taking a pro-life stance when large portions of the electorate agree with that stance. However, I do agree that gay issues are likely to be shelved for the future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Republicans as a party aren't anti- legal immigration. It's the illegal part they as a party have an issue with. Pairing a credible border security package (so this issue doesn't crop up again in 2 decades) along with a broader reform of the immigration system would likely get support.

I think the Republicans actually can shed this image, but it'll require them to clamp down on some members who seem to equate anti-immigration with anti Latino (ie, Arizona's law was waaaay too harsh and most Latinos apparently thought it was a racist law). I sound like a broken record on this, but President George W. Bush was actually VERY good on this issue. One can be anti-illegal immigration while not coming across as uncaring to immigrants in general.

Re social issues: Romney avoided such discussions like they were the plague. I don't see any electoral problem with the party taking a pro-life stance when large portions of the electorate agree with that stance. However, I do agree that gay issues are likely to be shelved for the future.

Romney did try to keep them in the background. Unfortunately some Senate races ended up bringing them up to the fore at times.

[Hauldren Collider]

The goal for illegal immigration should be to make it possible for people to move here legally, so that the only people who come here illegally are the real criminals--drug runners, human traffickers, that sort of thing.